campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Campaigns Wikia talk:Qualifications to vote
My objective as an admin and user of this site is to encourage people to participate. This policy is designed to make sure that votes are cast by people who have accounts and are willing to contribute to the site, but not so strict as to drive people away. Chadlupkes 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC) These should certainly be the minimal requirements. It might also be a good idea to require accounts to exist prior to the vote. It wouldn't make sock-puppetry impossible, but would at least require people to plan ahead to do so. Of course, that might exclude people who've been on the mailing list but not editing the wiki, but we could mention it ahead of time on the mailing list and tell people to register now if they haven't already and want to be included in the vote. Also, there's a different message at the top for people who aren't logged in... that could mention the requirement as a way to encourage people to register. --whosawhatsis? 20:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :Couple things. First, how do we tell when someone creates an account? They may never have posted on Campaigns, but accounts are Wikia wide and there were many different political wiki sites already here when Jimbo started this one, let alone all the others. Second, I didn't know the message changed for users not logged in. Isn't it site specific, regardless? Chadlupkes 20:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC) ::Log out and see. The message is Welcome to the Campaigns Wikia! We encourage you to create a free account (read why). (there are a couple of links in there, but you get the idea). Good point about the accounts, other than "before their first edit", I guess there's really no way to tell when an account was created... Maybe the requirement would have to be at least one edit. We could tell people to create their user page if nothing else so that we can verify that they were already around. Pre-existing users from other wikis would also be an issue, but it could be solved the same way. --whosawhatsis? 20:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :::I think it's better to deal with fraud as it happens instead of trying to head it off. Trust goes a long way, and a lot of weird hoops to jump through is just going to make things more difficult to new users and still not prevent old users from working the system. Let's just deal with voting irregularities on a case by case basis. But I think have an account is not too much to ask, so I like the proposal as it stands now. Since we don't have a gaping 'security hole' that can be filled easily with no inconvenience to the honest user, I would really urge us not to get too concerned with security. -- Ferguson 20:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Qualification: You must not be a sockpuppet of another user What about adding this on qualifications? It may be obvious but it is not big deal to mention it. Iasson 09:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC) :Good idea. We should define what sockpuppet is for people who don't know. Chadlupkes 14:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Five edit rule I think we should add a rule that someone must make five edits to Campaigns Wikia page before being allowed to vote, and must have created an account 3 days before the vote was called McLurker 14:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC) :We don't really have any way to know when accounts are created, other than "before their first edit". That's why I proposed requiring at least one edit before the vote starts (even just creating their user page) so that we know that they were around before the vote started. --whosawhatsis? 20:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC) :We also need to be clear on what it means to say "before the vote starts". Does that mean before a vote is identified, meaning that new people couldn't vote on any of the policy votes, or at least a day before the vote itself starts. I like the second option. Chadlupkes 20:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ::I would say "before the vote starts" means before the voting process where someone puts up a page where people can vote begins. Proposals, people suggesting votes etc is all prelimnary to that. I'd say my earlier call for it to be 3 days before is unnecessary, as long as someone makes contributions before taking part in a vote McLurker I think by the time the 2006 elections occur this will be a moot point. By the time 2008 rolls around the membership and exposure may be large enough to warrant some kind of edit requirement to vote. Is there a way to make the qualification along the lines of "edits on at least 3 different days"? Otherwise a vote requirement could be bypassed in a matter of minutes by doing five quick grammatical edits.Mnyakko 15:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Approval Vote not showing up. The template should be creating a link to the vote page. It's not working. Is the vote page mistitled? Chadlupkes 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC) :I'm seeing it now, probably a caching issue. --whosawhatsis? 23:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)